Sharda Devi and Others vs Suresh Prasad Vishwakarma and Others

I.A. No. 10613 of 2019

I.A. No. 10613 of 2019 has been filed for deleting the names of respondent nos. 2 to 7.

Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that after executing the sale deed in favour of the original appellant and thereafter partition suit in which decree has also been passed in favour of the original appellant on the basis of the sale deed executed by respondent nos. 2 to 7, the interest of respondent nos. 2 to 7 devolved upon the appellants and, therefore, the appellants has filed this interlocutory application for deletion of the names of respondent nos. 2 to 7 from the cause title of the memo of this appeal as their interest have already been purchased by original appellant and on the basis of said partition made by the registered sale deed in a partition suit, 70% of the suit property have already been decreed in favour of the appellant. He further submits that he may be allowed to delete the names of respondent nos. 2 to 7.

Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that if the appellants are inclined to do so, they may do the same on their own risk.

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the prayer made in this interlocutory application is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the names of respondent nos. 2 to 7 from the cause title of the memo of this appeal, in course of the day.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 10613 of 2019 stands allowed and disposed of.

I.A. No. 10322 of 2019

I.A. No. 10322 of 2019 was heard on 13.11.2019 and on that day, direction was issued not to proceed in the execution case if it has already not been taken place, till the next date of listing and that is why this interlocutory application has been placed today.

Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has taken instruction and has filed reply to the said interlocutory application. He further submits that in execution case, respondent has not proceeded as yet. He further submits that his client will suffer if this Second Appeal is not heard at the earliest. He also submits that this Second Appeal may be heard at an early date.

In view of the above facts and considering the fact that this Second Appeal has already been admitted and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, the order dated 13.11.2019 is extended till further order.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 10322 of 2019 stands allowed and disposed of.

S.A. No. 157 of 1990(R)

Notices were issued upon respondent nos. 3 and 5 on 13.11.2019. Office note suggests that undelivered registered cover with A/D has been received, which is kept at Flag X and Y respectively with the postal report on the envelope that both the respondents have refused to accept the notice.

In that view of the matter, notices upon respondent nos. 3 and 5 are deemed to be validly served.

It appears that this matter is of the year 1990. Office is directed to list this matter in the month of February, 2020.